Basic science put to the test of pragmatist sirens

There is
an idea of research policy that is making inroads in Italy and also
in Europe: we should do as the U.S.A. does. Let us be guided by
the tough but efficient market forces. No more luxuries, therefore. No more
intellectually satisfying idleness. In order to spur economic growth, we must give up
funding the "beautiful" basic science that produces knowledge
rather than immediate profits; we should mobilize scientists
paid with public money and use public funds to finance the rapid development of innovative products
that can immediately be put on the market. All this is perhaps aesthetically
less gratifying, but it is much more profitable.

This idea is almost always only
hinted at. It is more a slogan than a plan. However, it produces real effects.
Also because many economists and, especially, many economics commentators, more or
less authoritative, think there is no better regulator available, including
on matters of new knowledge production, than the market. Although it is only hinted at, although it is
little more than a slogan, this idea produces tangible effects. In Italy, for
example, funding for basic research - or, as we say today curiosity-driven research - tends to decrease
and, in many areas, it risks to go down below the threshold of
survival, as denounced by, among others, and with greater strength than others,
Fernando Ferroni, President of the National Institute of Nuclear Physics
(INFN), just as its researchers were obtaining outstanding scientific results,
significantly contributing to the "capture" of the
Higgs boson which made news all over the world. But the idea is producing tangible effects
also in Europe.This pragmatist philosophy, in fact, largely inspired
Horizon 2020, the European Union investment plan
that will replace the Seventh Framework Programme from 2014
until, in fact, 2020.

Well, this idea is three times
wrong. It preaches the false when it says that in order to move the economy, we need
public investment and the mobilization of academic scientists in the
rapid development of innovative products to put on the market. It preaches the
false when it says that basic research or curiosity-driven research
is a luxury we cannot afford in lean time. And
finally, it preaches the false when it argues that this is the market-oriented model that is successful in the
United States of America.

Scienzainrete
tried, also just recently, to unmask the first two false statements, those relating
to the decisive value, including from a financial standpoint, of publicly funded basic science
It is now time to unmask the third false statement, according to which the
the great ability for technological innovation in the United States is the result of
direct investment by the federal government. The contrary is actually true.
Since after the war and until now, in the United States there has been a
clear pact between the federal government and private enterprises: the state funds
basic or curiosity-driven science and businesses
finance technological development.

This deal has been working well for over six decades.
By now, the federal government annually invests in research well over 100 billion
dollars. Firms invest in technological development well over $ 200 billion
dollars. Public investment concerns both military
and civilian research. Let us stick, for simplicity, to civilian research. The federal government
has two major agencies through which it finances basic or curiosity-driven research: the National Institutes
of Health (NIH), which selects and funds projects in the biomedical field and the
National Science Foundation (NSF) that selects and funds research projects
in the other scientific disciplines.These are the two largest workshops
where new knowledge is produced in the United States and worldwide. The financing
mechanism is simple. Anyone can submit projects: groups and individuals
working in public and private laboratories and universities. The projects are
funded on the basis of their scientific quality, not on the basis of their
possible immediate applications.Competition for grants (for funding) is very tough, but everyone knows that
selection is based on merit. The conjunction of large resources
available and effective selection ensures a high average quality
of research.In the biomedical field, for example, 90%
of totally new formulas in the production of drugs were
produced by researchers funded by NIH, as noted by Marcia Angell, who for many years headed the New England Journal of Medicine,
although investment in research and
development of private enterprises is almost ten times higher.

So why do firms invest over
200 billion dollars annually in research and, above all, development? Well,
because they seek to translate into commercial goods the new fundamental knowledge
produced by scientists with public funds.

In reality, the circle of innovation
is completed because the federal state, beyond the funding to NIH and
NSF constantly proposes major projects - from the space conquest in
the 60s to the war against cancer in the '70s to the construction of new
weapon systems - which determine a tremendous demand for high technology.
Demand that companies are encouraged to meet. The
result is that precisely in the homeland of economic liberalism scientific research
is substantially removed from the logic of the market. It is not market-oriented. It is technological development that, instead, is left
to the market, although public intervention is anything but invisible and far from
light.

Therefore, if in Italy and Europe we
we intend to follow the American model, it is this model, which is not at all
pragmatist and not at all laissez-faire, that should be followed.

In reality, even in the United States, as
worldwide, the pragmatist sirens are singing their tune. And, according to some, their
singing is getting tangible results. Professor Paolo Bianco, of the
Department of Molecular Medicine at La Sapienza University in Rome, on Il Sole 24 Ore recently
noted, for example, that the pressure of large pharmaceutical companies ( Big Pharma ) is leading the federal government
into uncharted territory: the financing of the "rapid development of
products that can be marketed quickly, directly by academic researchers
and startup companies specially created
for this purpose". An example of this is the 14 million dollars financing of
strategies that can make possible the purchase of one's own genome sequence with
just 1,000 dollars. Or even the establishment of the National Center for Advancements in Translational
Science (NCATS), with a budget of no less than $ 2 billion per year, the goal of which
is precisely that of obtaining what private companies are no longer
able to do: the production of goods immediately usable and
marketable.

The pragmatist approach seems to be
the prevailing one also in the emerging scientific powers (China, India and
Brazil). The risk is obvious: it is as if you keep on bringing new horses
to drink from a river (the river of new knowledge), while upstream an ever taller dam is
being built. Sooner or later the river dries up. And the
horses will be left with nothing to drink.

This is not just a theoretical assumption. It already
occurred in the past.As Lucio Russo said in a good book of a few years
ago, The Forgotten Revolution ,
the excessive pragmatism of ancient Romans killed Hellenistic science. And, while
the crime was being committed no one had eyes for noticing it any more. The end
of science was one of the causes of the economic crisis that affected Europe for many centuries
during the period that we call the "dark centuries" of the Middle Ages.

Almost two millennia had to go by, before
science was rediscovered, and the economy set off again.